Will There Be a WW III?

[ChAiNz.2da]

Considering during the y2k scare, people were building bunkers and stashing weapons, all for a clock malfunction.. then yeah, I'm thinking between mankind's lost marbles and scruples.. a war isn't discountable.

 

Trouble is, the weapons are far nastier now, than during WWII.

Wouldn't surprise me if it went nuclear or biological, despite the "rules" of war (laughable) barring them. Rules only work when everyone plays by them.

 

All I know is.. if it happens, I'm buying a German shepherd and naming him "Dogmeat"

[mimartin]

As we count the years and the generation that fought WWII pass on, then my concern for another world war go up. As long as we were reminded of the human toll WWII cost us I was not overly concern about it happening again. However, being desensitized by images of war in different media makes old photos and newsreels of the human cost of WWII and WWI less of a deterrent. So sooner or later someone will think they can actually win a war and it will happen again.

 

Personally I believe it will happen sooner rather than later, diplomatic and signs of respect are already viewed as being weak by a portion of the population and media in the United States.

[Astor]

While i'm certain there will inevitably be a Third World War, I hope i'm dead and buried before it ever happens.

 

As we count the years and the generation that fought WWII pass on, then my concern for another world war go up. As long as we were reminded of the human toll WWII cost us I was not overly concern about it happening again. However, being desensitized by images of war in different media makes old photos and newsreels of the human cost of WWII and WWI less of a deterrent. So sooner or later someone will think they can actually win a war and it will happen again.

 

I agree with pretty much all of this, but i'd add that education isn't up to much now - it largely seems to ignore the human cost of the war, and focuses more on how it started or ended, which is all well and good, but it shouldn't ignore what those who fought those conflicts went through and saw.

 

Although I do think that there are many potent images from the Second World War, which still have the power to move -

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

 

There are no guns, no bodies, just distraught Parisians in tears as an occupying force stages a triumphal march through their home.

 

I doubt that any third world war would be fought in quite the same manner, but i've always thought that picture served to remind me that the mistakes of the past should not be made again.

 

Personally I believe it will happen sooner rather than later, diplomatic and signs of respect are already viewed as being weak by a portion of the population and media in the United States.

 

Obama bowed to the Japs! Fire up the Memphis Belle!

[machievelli]

Considering during the y2k scare, people were building bunkers and stashing weapons, all for a clock malfunction.. then yeah, I'm thinking between mankind's lost marbles and scruples.. a war isn't discountable.

 

Trouble is, the weapons are far nastier now, than during WWII.

Wouldn't surprise me if it went nuclear or biological, despite the "rules" of war (laughable) barring them. Rules only work when everyone plays by them.

 

All I know is.. if it happens, I'm buying a German shepherd and naming him "Dogmeat"

 

Good points. The people complain about actions by Nations who never bothered to accept or as in the case of Japan before WWII, 'set aside' the rules that were supposed to limit the carnage.

 

As we count the years and the generation that fought WWII pass on, then my concern for another world war go up. As long as we were reminded of the human toll WWII cost us I was not overly concern about it happening again. However, being desensitized by images of war in different media makes old photos and newsreels of the human cost of WWII and WWI less of a deterrent. So sooner or later someone will think they can actually win a war and it will happen again.

 

Personally I believe it will happen sooner rather than later, diplomatic and signs of respect are already viewed as being weak by a portion of the population and media in the United States.

 

When it comes to this, the biggest enemy the US has in any future war, ever since Vietnam for that matter, is our own homegrown peacniks. The people who extoll the struggle of our enemies, while dragging every bit of dity secrets our nation might want to keep. Who protest Israeli retaliation for attacks and at the same time ignore the attacks that kill not soldiers but civilians whose only crime is living in that nation. Think of all the 'Americans murdered X number of civilians' but ignores the enemy doing the same. In fact in the web site that lists all the collateral damage done during the gulf war every death, whether killed by American arms or the terrorists is blamedon us!

 

My favorite comment on this was some idiot that stated the Non proliferation treaty was created so the 'oppressed' couldn't get the same weapons to fight back.

 

While i'm certain there will inevitably be a Third World War, I hope i'm dead and buried before it ever happens.

 

 

 

I agree with pretty much all of this, but i'd add that education isn't up to much now - it largely seems to ignore the human cost of the war, and focuses more on how it started or ended, which is all well and good, but it shouldn't ignore what those who fought those conflicts went through and saw.

 

Although I do think that there are many potent images from the Second World War, which still have the power to move -

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

 

There are no guns, no bodies, just distraught Parisians in tears as an occupying force stages a triumphal march through their home.

 

I doubt that any third world war would be fought in quite the same manner, but i've always thought that picture served to remind me that the mistakes of the past should not be made again.

 

 

 

Obama bowed to the Japs! Fire up the Memphis Belle!

 

Worse yet we have the president and his family apologizing because a terrorist organization (WHich has not set their avowed goals regardless) that also happens to be the government of their state are whining that the US wil not give them billions in aid to 'defend themselves'.

[mimartin]

When it comes to this, the biggest enemy the US has in any future war, ever since Vietnam for that matter, is our own homegrown peacniks.

 

Yea, if them darn peacenik ever get the bomb we all will be in real trouble.

[Totenkopf]

The enemy w/in can often be more effective than the enemy outside the gates. I'd say the self-proclaimed "peacenik" is usually a deluded fool that tries to force America to fight w/one or both arms behind its back. Hard to maintain any war effort when these people try to erode public support and portray America as the bad guy. You can argue till your blue in the face about the legality/righteousness of a war, but when the gauntlet is thrown, you fight to win. FTR, no one here is or appears to be saying that people should declare war willy-nilly (ie frivolously and/or frequently).

[mimartin]

My sarcasm had more to do with my original post having NOTHING to do with peaceniks (whatever that is). So, I apologize for my part in moving the thread off topic. I will go stand in the corner for an hour.

 

Please get back on topic which is World War.

[Totenkopf]

In the spirit of mimartin's reminder (and while he stands in the corner for the next 45 mins or so ), WHAT do people think will be the likely cause(s) of a 3rd WW? Dwindling resources? A rapidly escalated smaller conflict? Religion? And where do you think it's most likely to start? Also, who do you see as being the major adversaries (ie w/America and against)?

[Ping]

I believe either less resources or religion would be the main cause. I'm not ruling out the escalation of a small conflict, but nations seem to be more all talk nowadays, so I have my doubts there's going to be an escalation of a minor war.

 

I think resources could be a cause since fossil fuels are running out, and nobody seems to care about finding alternate fuel to sustain us. Religion could also be a cause, since, let's be honest here, religion is just out of control now with terrorists and hate groups, and I hate to say it, but it's probably going to have some really bad long term effects.

[Tysyacha]

In the spirit of mimartin's reminder (and while he stands in the corner for the next 45 mins or so), WHAT do people think will be the likely cause(s) of a 3rd WW? Dwindling resources? A rapidly escalated smaller conflict? Religion? And where do you think it's most likely to start? Also, who do you see as being the major adversaries (ie w/America and against)?

 

Tysyacha's Speculations:

 

CAUSE OF WWIII: Dwindling resources (OIL, water, food, strategic points)

MOST LIKELY TO START IN: The Middle East and Asia (IRAN, Iraq, N. Korea)

ON AMERICA'S SIDE: Great Britain, France, Germany, and (oddly) Russia

AGAINST AMERICA: Iran, Iraq, Syria, N. Korea, other Asian Muslim countries

WINNER: US (I hope)

[True_Avery]

The entire middle east doesn't have the resources, fighting power, moral, organization... or anything to fight any "world wars". Sure, they have their capital cities but in the end the majority of their population is tribes whom have been at war with each other since the beginning of civilization. There would have to be a revolution of historic proportions to get the middle east organized to any reasonable threat. They have "terrorists", but a minority group of guerrilla fighters an army does not make.

 

Its like expecting Africa to just suddenly rise up as one and fight the world. With what? They have oil and resources, but what to they produce? Most of the middle east and Africa survive off of weapons we sold them in the cold war, and what they managed to steal after said war. Iran's terrifying air force? Old f-15s that went out of style when we invented planes that can destroy their entire "airforce" over the curvature of the earth. If it came down to it, most first world countries could destroy most of the middle east without ever stepping foot on the country itself.

 

Whatever war is coming next the middle east may cause a spark but its hardly a "world war" threat. The Middle East is definitely on the edge of a bunch of civil and country to country wars thanks to our meddling in that area over the past 70 years, but I'm pretty sure they are more preoccupied with who is a jew and who isn't than trying to fight the whole world.

 

As far as N. Korea goes... in my opinion, laughable at best. They don't have the population for it, nor the resources, moral, or, well, the money. N. Korea, despite its best efforts to show otherwise, is poor as dirt with a substandard "military". Their "military" is like a bodybuilder's body; its nice and thick, but in the end he can't move much, would be a pretty poor fighter, and also has a small d***. They can flex all they want, but a kick to the head and they'll fall like a tree.

 

Especially with China having a greater chance of allying with the United States, and Japan being more than willing to destory Korea... the only danger N. Korea poses is a possible invasion of S. Korea, which would end up being exactly how it was in the cold war; a proxy war that, while bloody, is still confined to two relatively small countries.

 

Problem with the WW3 scenario right now is that most first world countries are pretty damn comfortable with each other, and most third world countries are more preoccupied with killing their neighbors than fighting the first world countries. Chances are another World War would be sparked by a previously first world country, or a first world country that got powerful enough.

 

If you really, really pressed me I'd squeeze out a future China superpower when they get through their current industrial revolution being heavily involved in some way, but going by history I'd rule out any theories on direct war with the United States. We share the advantage that Britain has; we're essentially giant islands. You'd need a near invincible navy to get across the ocean to us, as well as an insane amount of ships to carry enough troops and equipment. Not gonna happen.

 

Chances are it'll be a land war in Asia like it has been forever. Europe will fight itself, the Middle east will fight itself, and east Asia will fight itself with overlap while America sits back and watches unless Canada tries to go to war with us.

 

But, you want my opinion on sides? Simple: The Internet. Those connected with each other will ally, and countries that heavily censor and nearly shut down from the rest of the world will do the opposite. Propaganda is harder when you can easily talk to the rest of the world, and I'd put money on countries that block out of country internet being on their own side from the web.

[mimartin]

WHAT do people think will be the likely cause(s) of a 3rd WW?[/Quote] Power and I’m not talking about natural resources. I’m speaking of power over fellow man. Either someone wants power or someone feels that their power is being taken from them. That combined with the utter stupidity that there are actually winners in a World War make for a dangerous situation.

 

It could be fought in the name of natural resources or religion, but the real motive will be someone wanting to force their agenda on another.

Also, who do you see as being the major adversaries (ie w/America and against)?

No clue.

 

WINNER:

None Everyone loses.

[Tysyacha]

/agreed

/concedes

 

I guess by "winner", I meant "who will come out ahead"...

[machievelli]

/agreed

/concedes

 

I guess by "winner", I meant "who will come out ahead"...

 

I was considering short of war but still devestating. The only complete records of all financial transactions are world wide are held in three places, the London Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange, and the Nikki-Dow. All recornds of every bank account are kept nearby; all of it electronically stored.

 

Remember the old television show Dark Angel? If you could destroy those records, it would take a decade to set things right. An attack on a smaller scale (Debt of Honor by Clancy) Had the US economy attacked right before a war with Japan. The way they saved the economy, and struck a corresponding blow to the Japanese economy was to start the exchange up again a week later as if nothing had happened, everything frozen to exactly what it had been at the start of the disaster.

[JediAthos]

I'd like to believe that there are backups to backups for that kind of critical information but I suppose I could be wrong. It actually reminds me of the scenario from Live Free or Die Hard where a massive cyber attack is launched against the United States with the goal of getting said financial information and propelling the country back into the stone age. The movie was over the top but the prospect of the scenario is scary.

[Darth333]

Tysyacha's Speculations:

 

CAUSE OF WWIII: Dwindling resources (OIL, water, food, strategic points)

MOST LIKELY TO START IN: The Middle East and Asia (IRAN, Iraq, N. Korea)

ON AMERICA'S SIDE: Great Britain, France, Germany, and (oddly) Russia

AGAINST AMERICA: Iran, Iraq, Syria, N. Korea, other Asian Muslim countries

WINNER: US (I hope)

 

Err... I am not answering the initial thread's question for personal reasons but look at your above statement: "Dwindling resources (OIL, water, food, strategic points)"...

 

Do you realize that these resources target different regions of the world and different primary interests? I can hardly see many of the countries listed sharing the same interest in each of the above mentioned areas (and America = more than one country, often with different POVs and interests ).

[mimartin]

I'd like to believe that there are backups to backups for that kind of critical information but I suppose I could be wrong.

There usually are. I know at least most companies in the insurance industry have a back up to their back up's back up. I guess it just depends on the industry and how conservative they are. Most finance institutions are very conservative, at least with their own money.

[machievelli]

There usually are. I know at least most companies in the insurance industry have a back up to their back up's back up. I guess it just depends on the industry and how conservative they are. Most finance institutions are very conservative, at least with own money.

 

If you have read Debt of Honor, You'll remember that one part of that attack was to destroy the records of every transaction made that day. What people don't realize (And Clancy used with such skill I envy him) is that Banks are one of the big investors in the Stock and commodities exchange. With no record of who did what, people could lie about it for gain. "Oh I sold that stock here, when it was at this amount, not here, when it was ten points cheaper'. And if any real length of time passes (Clancy's characters fixed it by having the market wait only a week before retailating) others will make claims to having made buys of now seriously depressed stocks, knowing the government will get the market back on it's feet.

 

Worse yet, picture someone telling the bank "I already paid the note, why are you deamnding I pay again? Oh, your records are gone? Well here are mine (With the ink still wet) and they say I'm paid off.'

[mimartin]

This very much explains why we are regulated to keep a hard copy of each transaction for 72 hours.

 

Don’t know much about banks but with a series 6 license I had to keep a log book for each transaction, scan the hard copy into the computer, keep a paper copy in my file for the client and give the customer a receipt. Fiction is a beautiful thing, but in the end it is still fiction. Also anyone making a major transaction without getting a receipt and the proper paper work is a fool and “a fool and his money are soon parted.”

[Arcesious]

Even if there was a world war 3 and it went nuclear, I doubt many nuclear missiles would be fired in such a situation. Maybe half a dozen to a dozen nukes fired, tops, before everyone decides they've had enough. And that isn't going to destroy the entire world. Maybe a couple major cities pulverized, but the world would easily rebuild from the damage within a few decades.

 

With all the experience and history the world has with wars, I bet that such a war would only last a few days before everyone nearly unanimously decided that a third world war was the stupidest thing anyone had ever done.

[Tysyacha]

^^^^^^^^^

 

Let's hope so. Otherwise, there won't be anyone left to start a WWIV. (bad joke)

[Roller123]

The most likely WW3 conflict? Assuming the world goes broke(else no war possible sorry), then its

 

China(+US support) vs Russia(+EU support)

 

-China(workers demand more money, resource rich Siberia is a great way to get money)

-USA(forced to help China to maintain its own stability)

 

vs

 

-Russia(possession of ressources)

-Europe(couldnt reach Siberia anyway, but has currently access via Russia).

 

Result: China gets glassed(never fight a war in Asia). But so will be many major cities. Not the first time this scenario is happening. But it always ends the same.

[Darth Avlectus]

^^^Interesting. Upon what do you base these, if I may?

[Roller123]

Clashes between Russia and China are not unheard of. See Sino-Soviet border conflict. Recently Russia ceded some territory to China as well. Lots of chinese are working&living in that general area, which is far closer to Beijing than to Moscow. Not to speak about difference in population amount.. Siberia 40m and sinking, China 1400m and raising.

 

The US needs a source of cheap products, G2 was suggested by the US, not China. China soon will have a typical dilemma, as it gets richer, so would like the workers, but as cheap labor is what makes China richer, its either one or another. Or landgrab. Now i dont think Chinese have the spirit to do that alone, but in alliance with USA they could. That too is not unheard of.

 

Europe.. its a total mess, already actually. One thing is sure, w/o US money all those "small independent democracies" aka puppet states immediately go broke and back under Russian influence. That or they go into a state of anarchy like its happening with Kyrgyzstan right now. Either way Russia will not face a 2 front war.

 

As for the Arab thread i think its overrated because they are not integrated into world's economy. USA invaded Iraq, Afghanistan. Israel invaded Libya or something. Nothing happened. Noone really cares, or does anything other then talk. At a slight sight of danger they are glassed and life goes on.

 

again this assumes that the world goes broke first, war second heh.

 

 

God, Chome's spellcheck is awful and i havent slept the night..

[VeniVidiVicous]

The war's going to start between a primarily Muslim Europe and a primarily Catholic America.

 

Demographically, Britain will likely become islamicized w/in a few generations. Europe itself at least as quickly or faster.

 

It surprises me how often this comes up, from my experience the facts don't support the theory of "Islamifacation" for lack of a better term.

 

I live in Europe btw.